Gilroy
– Owners of dogs that bark into the night and parents who let
teenagers booze at home could soon face hundreds of dollars in
fines – even jail time.
Gilroy – Owners of dogs that bark into the night and parents who let teenagers booze at home could soon face hundreds of dollars in fines – even jail time.
Police will have new powers to crack down on such residents under a pair of ordinances endorsed by city leaders last week. If the laws receive final approval in coming months, violators of either would face tickets ranging from $100 to $500, while serial offenders could get slapped with a $1,000 fine or up to six-months jail time, under city codes.
Loud dogs are the leading source of complaints to Gilroy police, City Administrator Jay Baksa told city councilmen last week during a day of informal policy talks. Existing laws inadequately deal with the problem because a citation must bear the name of the person filing the complaint, Police Chief Gregg Giusiana said.
“Right now, we get anonymous calls and officers can’t do anything,” he said. “The idea of the curfew is, if there’s a dog barking, police can take action. They can issue a citation or give them a warning the first time, and the next time an administrative fine.”
Officials have yet to decide on the time of night – and early morning – when barking becomes a public nuisance. Giusiana mentioned 10pm as an example at the policy talks, but he could not be reached Wednesday to provide more definite examples.
In addition to the curfew, officials are planning to increase fines for dog owners who fail to keep a pet on a leash, and require higher levels of insurance for so-called dangerous breeds of dogs.
Chihuahas and pit bulls are the city’s most dangerous dogs, responsible for a quarter of the 40 animal bites during a 10-month period in 2006, according to a police report.
Social Hosting Ordinance
Teen-age drinkers partying in Gilroy could soon cost their parents major fines and even jail time under a so-called social hosting ordinance.
Councilmen have endorsed the idea but have not agreed on how harshly to deal with parents away on vacation and others who unwittingly provide a party venue.
“I like it but I really want to make sure that the first time police respond that we don’t fine the parents, that we give them at least one opportunity to correct the problem,” Councilman Dion Bracco said Saturday, during the informal policy talks.
Councilman Russ Valiquette thinks the city should only crack down on parents who knowingly break the law by providing a place to booze.
“A lot of times you hear about parents who say I’d rather have my kids drink at home than off in a field somewhere,” he said.
Under current laws, police can do little more than break up a party, and the police department does not alert parents about a weekend gathering, for instance, after they return from a vacation. Police Sgt. Kurt Svardal could not predict if Gilroy’s hosting ordinance will penalize all parents, regardless of whether they knew about a party.
The department will make recommendations based on successful formulas in other cities, and after that the matter lies in council’s hands, Svardal said.
South County Collaborative, a consortium of social service providers, is pushing Morgan Hill leaders to adopt a hosting ordinance similar to the one proposed in Gilroy. On the first offense, if the parents are away from home, they would only get a warning. On the second infraction, parents who were away from home would face the same penalties as if they had knowingly hosted the party.
Crying ignorance is no excuse, said Dina Campeau, the collaborative’s co-chair. It’s easy enough, she told councilmen, to ask a neighbor to keep an eye out on their home and kids.
“As parents of teen-agers,” she said, “it would behoove us to expect the worst and be prepared.”
